Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
npx skills add gtrabanco/agentic-workflow --skill review-plangit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/gtrabanco/agentic-workflowWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/skills/gtrabanco/agentic-workflow/review-plan)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/gtrabanco/agentic-workflow/review-plan"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/gtrabanco/agentic-workflow/review-plan.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00089 | $0.02148 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00044 | $0.01074 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00018 | $0.00430 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00215 |
Grade A, and why
review-plan scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 2d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 153 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review Plan
The Engineering gate. A planned unit is reviewed here, by a context that did not
cut it, before any phase is implemented. Findings and one verdict only — the
repair belongs to plan-feature / plan-fix, and source belongs to
execute-phase.
Planned ≠ reviewable. `Status: planned` proves the planner's own readiness
preflight ran; this skill is what lets `execute-phase` trust the plan.
Turn contract
Load and verify the canonical Turn contract (11 boxes) before ending every turn. This skill's additional boxes live only in OUTPUT.md. Missing reference → STOP. An about-to-end turn with an unchecked box is not done.
✓ Unit kind and stage row chosen from the roadmap row, never from a guess
✓ Plan snapshot bound to the exact bytes: every applicable artifact row present,
digest computed at one revision, parent SPEC digest recomputed and never copied
as identity (`pre-execution-review`'s `POLICY.md` §7 owns the identity-value rule)
✓ Every Engineering check ticked with evidence or turned into a finding; the
obligation ledger was read row by row
✓ One verdict printed from the closed set, with the receipt block persisted and
findings appended to `planning-findings.md` — write-then-report
(`pre-execution-review`'s `POLICY.md` §8)
✓ Zero writes to any reviewed artifact (`SPEC.md`, `PLAN.md`, `TASKS.md`,
`ACCEPTANCE.md`, `planning-evidence.md`, `planning-obligations.md`, roadmap)
When to use
plan-feature-scaffoldorplan-fixfinished a unit andexecute-phaseis about to start:/review-plan <NN-slug>(fix:/review-plan fix-<N>).- After a replan batch produced a new
artifactRevisionIdfor a failed plan. execute-phaserefuses to edit without a current PASS from this skill; it redirects here instead of proceeding.- Not for the Product half (
review-spec), not for source diffs (review-change), not for merge gating (audit-pr).
What ships with it
3 files beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 2d ago Changed 805b1b339be4
- 3d ago First seen · 153 lines · 89 tokens per session scan A 3e5361177e01
review-plan is a skill published in the GitHub repository gtrabanco/agentic-workflow (21 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 89 tokens to every session and 2,148 once invoked, about $0.0004 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-09-04.
Other skills, from other repositories
argumentation
Construct well-structured arguments using the hypothesis-argument-example triad. Covers formulating falsifiable hypotheses, building logical arguments (deductive, inductive, analogical, evidential), providing concrete examples, and steelmanning counterarguments. Use when writing or reviewing PR descriptions that…
cross-review-project
Conduct a structured cross-project code review between two Claude Code instances via the cross-review-mcp broker. Each agent reads its own codebase, reviews the peer's code, and engages in evidence-backed dialogue — with QSG scaling laws enforcing review quality through minimum bandwidth constraints and phase-gated…
create-pull-request
Create and manage pull requests using GitHub CLI. Covers branch preparation, writing PR titles and descriptions, creating PRs, handling review feedback, and merge/cleanup workflows. Use when proposing changes from a feature or fix branch for review, merging completed work into the main branch, requesting code review…
coding-guidance-python
Python implementation and review skill. Use when writing, modifying, refactoring, or reviewing Python code, especially production Python that needs clear contracts, type safety, testability, and maintainable module boundaries. Portable across Python repos and tooling stacks.
007
Security audit, hardening, threat modeling (STRIDE/PASTA), Red/Blue Team, OWASP checks, code review, incident response, and infrastructure security for any project.
address-github-comments
Use when you need to address review or issue comments on an open GitHub Pull Request using the gh CLI.